Hello Vera,

but I guess ideally one should still expect to have compatible results
after the unfolding. Since the detector response matrix for these tests is
build using mxhad/mxhadfit according to the use of mxhad/mxhadfit for the
measured spectrum, it should theoretically account for more or less
missing particles in the two different variables and then give the same
result in the end.
But this might explain the shift in the plots on page 6 of what we
showed before christmas (the mxhad/mxhadfit in signal MC and the measured
spectrum).

Thanks!
Kerstin


On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Luth, Vera G. wrote:

> Hello Kerstin,
>
> I missed the meeting this morning due to other commitments.
>
> I presume you realize that one expects that the kinematic fit shifts the
> Mx_had spectrum to higher values.  It compensates somewhat for undetected particles.
> Ciao
> Vera
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Kerstin Tackmann
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 8:35 AM
> To: Sacco, Roberto
> Cc: Heiko Lacker; vub-recoil
> Subject: Re: Next Meeting: Tuesday, 1/03/05
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> happy new year to all of you!
>
> You can find a couple of plots concerning the unfolding and the kinematic fit here:
>
> http://www.slac.stanford.edu/~kerstin/vubfit/VR010405.pdf
>
> Kerstin
>
>
> On Tue, 4 Jan 2005, Roberto Sacco wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I'm in Padova right now, can anyone phone me on:
> > +390498277055 for today's meeting?
> >
> > I put 2 plots in my public_html directory:
> > ~sacco/public_html/comp1235_fitvar.eps
> > ~sacco/public_html/comp1237_fitvar.eps
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > Roberto
> >
>
>